Ron Powell, employed by Oakridge Sand & Gravel (Commission decision, May 14, 2009)
Ron Powell, employed by Oakridge Sand & Gravel (FMSHRC WEST 2009-344-M): Settlement confusion supported reopening
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2009, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
MSHA assessed Ron Powell personally under section 110(c). While the parties negotiated a settlement, confusion arose over which penalties the agreement covered, and Powell's penalties were not contested on time. The Secretary supported reopening so the settlement could be approved. The Commission reopened the assessment and remanded for the Chief ALJ to rule on the attached settlement motion.
Decision snapshot
- Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.26 and 2700.27; 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(a) and 820(c)
- Outcome: The personal penalty assessment was reopened and remanded for settlement review.
- Key point: Confusion about which penalties a negotiated settlement covers can support reopening when both sides seek approval of the agreement.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW
SUITE 9500
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
May 14, 2009
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
v.
RON POWELL, employed by
OAKRIDGE SAND & GRAVEL
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket No. WEST 2009-344-M
A.C. No. 35-00524-156092 A
BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan, Young, and Cohen, Commissioners
ORDER
BY THE COMMISSION:
This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On January 7, 2009, the Commission received from Ron Powell a request to reopen a penalty assessment against Powell under section 110(c) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 820(c), that had become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).
Under the Commission’s Procedural Rules, an individual charged under section 110(c) has 30 days following receipt of the proposed penalty assessment within which to notify the Secretary of Labor that he or she wishes to contest the penalty. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.26. If the individual fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.27.
We have held, however, that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessments that have become final Commission orders. Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993) (“JWR”). In evaluating requests to reopen final section 105(a) orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which, for example, a party could be entitled to relief from a final order of the Commission on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 2700.1(b) (“the Commission and its Judges shall be guided so far as practicable by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); JWR, 15 FMSHRC at 787. We have also observed that default is a harsh remedy and that, if the defaulting party can make a showing of good cause for a failure to timely respond, the case may be reopened and appropriate proceedings on the merits permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).
The Secretary supports reopening of the proposed penalty assessment in order that the parties’ agreement to settle the penalty assessment can be approved. The record indicates that there had been confusion as to which penalties were included in the settlement being negotiated among the parties and, as a result, the penalties involving Mr. Powell were not timely contested.
Having reviewed Mr. Powell’s request and the Secretary’s response, we grant reopening and hereby remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a ruling on the motion for approval of the settlement attached to the Secretary’s response.
Michael F. Duffy, Chairman
Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner
Michael G. Young, Commissioner
Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner
Distribution:
Hafez Daraee, Esq.
Jordan, Schrader, Ramis, P.C.
P. O. Box 230669
Portland, OR 97281
Jeannie Gorman, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 945
Seattle, WA 98101-3212
W. Christian Schumann, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220
Arlington, VA 22209-2296
Myra James, Chief
Office of Civil Penalty Compliance
MSHA
U.S. Dept. of Labor
1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick
Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500
Washington, D.C. 20001-2021
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace